SEL20110628.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

June 28, 2011

APPROVED &#= 8211; July 5, 2011

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 6:30pm

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Mr. Edmund Gleason, Mr.= Douglas Viger, Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Robert Haverty,

Mr. Hal Lynde, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

None.

PL= EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

OPEN FORUM

Mr. Paul McDonough, = 29 Mammoth Road came forward to discuss the fire station. He said the present = status of the station wasn’t equal to that of the ever increasing population= in the Town. He said the firemen= were facing the dilemma of responding to an emergency without the needed safegua= rds for their manpower. They also needed certain equipment to address the safety of the Town for both the residents and the businesses. Mr. McDonough believed if the residents had more information as to the fire department’s needs with regard to the Town’s safety, the outcome (of the vote) may be different. He said they couldn’t compromise the needs of the Police or Fire Departm= ents because both played a vital role to protect the needs of the residents. Mr. McDonough ended by saying he w= as personally impressed with Fire Chief Midgley and the Board of Selectmen to = have the initiative to once again pursue the need of having a new fully equipped fire house.

APPOINTMENTS

Continued = Fire Station Discussion

Mr. Gleason stat= ed the Selectmen had a preliminary meeting (a couple weeks ago) on the fire station and chartered Mr. Gaydos to evaluate the proposal for a steel structure. At this time, Mr. Gleason asked Mr= . Dave Mermelstein of Trident, who was appointed by the Selectmen to analyze the proposal, to come forward and discuss the findings.

Mr. Dave Mermels= tein, Project Manager Trident Group (Salem, NH) explained that they was asked to review the (fire station) plans and evaluate the current building design (concrete/ICF), a steel frame design, and a steel/wood frame design. They reviewed the cost and how the buildings would hold up over the course of time. The Selectmen were provided with a (‘hard’) cost breakdown of the individual line items for the construction as well as a matrix that shows the pros and cons for each buil= ding type. Mr. Mermelstein explain= ed how each of the building types were reviewed and discussed the information provided. The outcome, in ter= ms of cost, showed the concrete structure (as originally designed) to be approximately 4.5% more ($131,000) than the steel frame building. When reviewing wind resistance and durability, it was clear that the concrete structure was much more durable = and would far outlast the other building types. The findings regarding cost was ba= sed on the information Trident had to date, they priced off a set of architectural drawings that were 30% complete; there were more details that would need to= be filled in, but the estimator carried a contingency in the number for unforeseen it= ems that could arise in the final design process. Mr. Mermelstein felt concrete was = a good choice when looking at the overall life expectancy of the building.

Mr. Gleason comm= ented that the number that resonated with a lot of the tax payers was $380,000 put forth for a skeletal frame of a building.&= nbsp; He asked Mr. Mermelstein to elaborate how it related to the end cost= . He also asked if the analysis addr= essed the issue of both designs satisfying the original design criteria that was established, in terms of wind sheer, snow loads, insulating values. Mr. Mermelstein replied that the n= umbers that were given to the Selectmen had been very ‘loose’ (under a half million) (for the steel frame) and some didn’t relate to the building. He said with the nu= mber provided to finish the (steel) building with the same criteria, utilizing a high performance foam insulated system to meet the same ‘R’ val= ues of the concrete system, the hard cost number would be $2,858,000. Photographic images were circulate= d to the Board showing what would be included in the half million dollar cost. This cost didn’t include the= site work, which estimated at $340,000. <= /span>He said when looking at a civic building/specialty building, such as a fire station that would be in existence for one hundred years, it made sense to = go in that direction (concrete) for only a 4.5% increase. He noted that steel and wood frame= were susceptible to moisture. The concrete building was not. He commented that there was very high reported performance of insulating values with the concrete building because of the sheer mass of the walls; there we= re reports of exterior walls having an insulating resistance value of about an R-70. It was very difficult t= o get that in a foam insulated product. Mr. Mermelstein explained they looked at the acceptable R-values by = the state of New Hampshire for the proposed type of insulated system; the report came back at a 31.3 R-value. So, they made sure t= hat the r-value in the conventional (concrete) and steel building met that criteria.

Mr. Lynde discus= sed the proposed R-value (31.3) used in Trident’s evaluation and noted that t= here were recurring/operating costs influenced by the R-values, such as heating,= air conditioning that had not been taken into account. Mr. Mermelstein said they tried to equalize the information. He = said ultimately, based on engineering analysis (still to be done), the Town would save money in the overall operating costs of the (concrete) building, over = the life of the building. Mr. Lyn= de commented that steel girders were pathways for heat loss. He asked if there would be ‘= hot spots’ near the beams even if they were fully insulated. Mr. Mermelstein replied that the e= stimator that reviewed the information created an assembly beyond the proposed system that created an assembly with a better insulated envelope. Mr. Lynde confirmed that the compa= rison was almost ‘apples to apples’.&nbs= p; The information was as close as they could get to that type of comparison. Mr. Lynde asked i= f the steel structure had the wind load capability of the ICF (concrete). Mr. Mermelstein said they used the= same state criteria for a central building (emergency center). He said the steel structure could = not provide the Town with resistance to debris that may be thrown during a hurricane or micro-burst situation. He reiterated that the concrete building would afford the Town with added security because it was truly a much more durable building; he review= ed data supporting his statement. Mr. Lynde understood that the ICF building had a wind load capability of 180mph= . Mr. Mermelstein said that was the analysis provided by the structural engineer. Mr. Lynde asked what the steel bui= lding had for wind load capability. Mr. Mermelstein didn’t have the chart, but wanted to say it was 98mph.

Mr. Haverty beli= eved what was being said was in New Hampshire an emergency building had to meet a cer= tain criteria. The building had to= stand up to a certain wind load number; all of the buildings being reviewed will stand up to that wind load number. <= /span>The ICF building will stand up to a number above and beyond what the state requ= ired for an emergency building, and further would be more durable toward debris = that may be generated by a storm than the other structures.

Mr. Gleason aske= d if the pricing that was done, that resulted in the analysis, was done by an established firm using statistical data or sampling of pricing so it represented current costs. Mr. Mermelstein answered yes. He = said the firm that worked with Trident was a reputable firm known for high quality work. The firm was founded by= a cost estimator; they had a full-time estimator that did nothing but capture= current data. The costs were all very= accurate. The one number they had a sub-cont= ractor review was for the concrete system (ICF system) so they could verify their number was correct. Mr. Gleas= on asked if anyone verified with a steel company that the presented prices were accurate. Mr. Mermelstein rep= lied that the firm was a manufacturer’s representative for a pre-engineered metal building company. They = felt that the number was good for what was provided. Mr. Gleason confirmed that the ove= rall consensus from Trident and the estimating company was that the comparison w= as based on the representation of similar design requirements. Mr. Mermelstein answered yes; with= all three structures reviewed.

Mr. McDevitt que= stioned the life span of the steel building and asked what compromised that structu= re to make that life span less than the concrete. Mr. Mermelstein believed the exter= ior walls. He said providing that= a building was well taken care of it could last a very long time. He witnessed with some light gauge= metal buildings, their susceptibility to moisture and possible rusting (within the wall cavity). He said with the proper maintenance the building could last forever. Mr. McDevitt asked if there were i= ssues with concrete wicking moisture, or problems with salt (being around it). Mr. Mermelstein stated that the co= ncrete would be protected by insulation on both the exterior and interior. The ICF system was developed to sa= ve money from building block buildings; it would be a well protected concrete mass. He noted that moisture = in house basements was driven from the exterior; from the water that built up = in the soils and pushed through the concrete wall. He commented that ICF was a protec= ted system that wouldn’t be below grade, and the area that was below grade would be the slab (that would have moisture either way). He noted the wall system above the ground was not susceptible to that type of moisture. The exterior (horizontal concrete)= would look exactly like a conventional building and would not require painting; t= he trim will be a pvc material, both of which are low maintenance.

In terms of bidd= ing, Mr. McDevitt asked if there would be a disadvantage (and to what extent) if usi= ng a concrete building. Mr. Mermel= stein answered Trident typically required a minimum of three bids. He said they knew of three highly qualified New Hampshire contractors who specialized in the (concrete) building type. He noted it was possible, with commercial building, to have sub-contractor forces pulled from other states= . Mr. McDevitt asked if there were examples of concrete buildings that he could see in person. Mr. Mermelstein said the Portsmouth fire st= ation was recently completed with the proposed building type. All reports indicat= ed that station was efficient to heat and cooling. He said Pelham should look at how = much it would cost to operate the building over the course of time. Mr. McDevitt asked for an explanat= ion of how the concrete worked relative to the bays. Mr. Mermelstein said in a concrete building the bays would also be concrete; the doors and windows would be the weak link in the system.

Mr. Gleason disc= ussed the information that was brought forward, and summarized that there was a 4= % cost reduction in having a steel building, but the cost reduction theoretically could be offset by the life-cycle cost of the steel, versus the cost of the concrete operating system. Mr. Mermelstein said the lower energy costs over the course of time would be a short payback. Mr. Gleason confirmed that the presented pricing was based on validated/current pricing from an established firm who compared ‘apples to apples’ to the extend they could in consideration of the requirements. Mr. Mermelstein said that was corr= ect.

With the numbers= being mentioned, Mr. McDevitt felt the public needed to be urged of great caution that the costs discussed were not inclusive of absolutely everything; there were other things on top of the costs that were eliminated for discussion s= ake (i.e. soft costs). The number= s were ‘hard’ construction costs that didn’t include things such= as architect and engineering fees, reimbursables, testing fees and FFE (furnit= ure, fixtures, equipment). Mr. Gle= ason noted that the costs being discussed didn’t include radiant heating.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Mermelstein said there were pr= evious discussions and the decision that radiant heat probably didn’t make s= ense in the building. Mr. Gleason confirmed that Mr. Mermelstein discussed the presented information with the Fire Chief, who concurred with everything that was done. Mr. Mermelstein said that was corr= ect. Mr. Gleason reiterated that other = costs needed to be considered, so no one should take the presented cost as being = the price for the new station.

Mr. Viger stated= the Selectmen were presented with three different types of construction being as equal as they could be. With = time being of the essence, he believed the Selectmen should choose one and estab= lish a building team to establish the soft costs and overall construction cost of the project. Mr. Gleason said= the intent of the discussion was to complete the analysis enabling the Selectme= n to make a decision regarding if they wanted to proceed, and if so, how they wo= uld proceed.

Mr. Haverty felt= the soft cost estimate should be the same regardless of what structure they dec= ided upon. He believed they could = get to a ballpark number based on the provided information; enough for him to deci= de which way he would want to go with the building.

Mr. McDevitt ask= ed Mr. Mermelstein to explain the notes listed in the ‘con’ column for= the concrete structure (1. electrical coordination can be difficult; 2. difficu= lt to reconfigure exterior door and window locations once built, 3. additional costs for required fire rating in the apparatus bays). Mr. Mermelstein said they heard re= ports that it was difficult for electricians to install their devices in the wall system. Because of the additi= onal work, the added cost has been carried; for a building of the proposed size = it would be a $5000 premium. The= wall is put in solid and the electrician would need to carve pathways. The difficulty in reconfiguring the exterior door/window locations was due to the reinforcing bar that wraps ar= ound the door and windows. Regardi= ng the additional costs for the apparatus bay fire ratings, Mr. Mermelstein explai= ned that the walls would need to be skim coated with a plaster-type substance o= ver a wire mesh because the foam had a high degree of flame rating. Mr. McDevitt asked if there would = be any difficulties mounting things to the bay walls. Mr. Mermelstein stated that the sy= stem had a strip embedded within the system making it so devices could be attach= ed to it depending on the weight of the item.= If an item is too heavy, the wall can be sheathed with fire resistant plywood. He explained that the plywood would be mounted to the concrete, the equipment would then be lagged through the plywood, the foam and through the concrete; the plywood is givi= ng the insulation more resistance to crushing.

Mr. McDevitt wan= ted to know how possible future electrical equipment could be added. Mr. Mermelstein said it wouldnR= 17;t be an easy process, because the foam insulation is installed after all the electrical work was done. The electricians that work with the system, after the fact, have a flexible bit with an auger-type drill at the end of it that would core through the foam. It would be the same pr= ocess whether it was the spray foam insulation or the concrete type.

Mr. McDevitt dis= cussed safety and protection. He not= ed dispatch would be located in a different building, which was much less protected (than the proposed). His concern was, what was being protected by spending money on concrete, and at what price would they gain that protection. He said it was fair answer to say = they would be protecting the fire fighters and other emergency personnel in the building.

Mr. Gleason said= part of the response was the cost difference being only 4% between one construction= and the other. He said for the additional cost ($150,000) they would be getting a building that would prob= ably withstand/sustain a dynamic event better and would remain standing.

Mr. Viger commen= ted that Fire Chief Midgley had mentioned one advantage, if there was a catastrophic event, is they would be able to use the building for a command center and dispatch/house the emergency personnel.&nb= sp; Mr. McDevitt recalled the same.&nbs= p; Mr. Haverty noted that a dispatch center could be set up anyplace because they had the equipment to do so.&n= bsp; He spoke of a recent storm event in the area and a photograph shown = on the news of a fire station that had debris covering it. He remembered thinking I hope they don’t need that fire truck anytime soon. In his opinion (if there were dama= ge), it would be easier to pull a door out and drive the truck, rather than digg= ing it out from under a demolished building.&n= bsp; Mr. McDevitt said it w= as fair to say that the building had less likelihood of the walls collapsing /= crumbling/blowing out or in.

Mr. Lynde saw in= the ‘con’ column for the steel building the note indicating additio= nal foundation costs due to larger footings and required reinforcement. He asked if this was reflected in = the costs provided. Mr. Mermelste= in answered yes. Mr. Lynde quest= ioned what the comment related to that said roof drainage must be reviewed. Mr. Mermelstein said the steel str= ucture provided to the Selectmen went through a quick review with Roland Soucy and= the supplier; there wasn’t a complete package of drawings. The assumption was made that it wa= s a single pitch roof, and review would need to be done for how the roof system shed water. Currently, with t= he proposed steel structure all the water will pour off the back of the buildi= ng and create icing conditions at the apparatus doors. Mr. Mermelstein said the concrete structure, as designed, sheds the water in the opposite direction of the doors. Mr. Lynde favored the = ICF because of the wind loads and operating costs. He felt there was a savings in ope= rating costs (i.e heating and maintenance) that could possibly more than make up f= or the 4.5% difference.

Mr. McDevitt und= erstood that the walls were super insulated, but questioned heat loss through the ceiling. Mr. Mermelstein said= there would be heavy insulation. Th= e ICF companies make a system to go on the roof trusses/ceiling assembly. There was further discussion regar= ding the insulation/R-value. Mr. Mermelstein said he reviews what does the state building code allow the engineers to utilize when doing their calculations. This applies both to the walls and= the ceiling.

Mr. Gleason beli= eved Mr. Mermelstein had done the job he was chartered to do. At this point he felt the discussi= on came back to the Selectmen to review and make a decision what to do. The Selectmen thanked Mr. Mermelst= ein.

Mr. Gleason aske= d for the Board’s opinion. He= felt the Selectmen should decide to proceed with one design and ascertain what it would take to obtain a firm number to put before the voters.

Mr. Lynde believ= ed the ICF was the right decision. H= e said the thing that struck him when they first decided to use that approach was = the wind and snow load capability of the building to withstand higher than spec. numbers as well as the R-values and reduced on-going operating costs. He also felt there was a benefit f= rom the overall maintenance. In summary, Mr. Lynde stated his opinion that the benefits presented by the building outweighed, and would more than make up, for any cost difference b= etween it and the steel building. He= felt there was less uncertainty with the ICF.&n= bsp;

Mr. McDevitt sai= d at the previous meeting there was discussion regarding snow loads. He asked if the buildings were equivalent and why the concrete would be better/worse than others.

Mr. Gleason said= when the steel structure was first proposed he felt it afforded them the opportu= nity to realize a significant cost reduction.&n= bsp; He said the analysis indicated when all the design criteria was appl= ied to the steel building and to the ICF, the cost advantage was minimal (with = the steel structure). He said he = was leaning toward the ICF (concrete) as a municipal structure for the Fire Department over the long term.

The snow load was further discussed. Mr. McDevitt reiterated his question; if there was a difference according to the type of structure. He asked if concrete afforded a gr= eater snow load capability. Mr. Mermelstein said the roof structures were all equal; they were designed to support the loads per the state building code. Mr. McDevitt asked what the state building code was. Mr. Mermel= stein didn’t have the data with him, but believed it may be 155 pounds per square foot.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McDevitt discussed the roof de= sign, specifically the design of the steel structure forcing water in a particular direction. He said it seemed contrary to the need to have a colonial style building. He asked where they were with the concrete building with meeting the architectural requirements of the site.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Mermelstein said the concrete structure had a peaked roof and would technically meet the covenants that w= ere placed on the property. He said the = steel building had a single-pitched roof that wouldn’t meet the covenants.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He noted that was a minor design issue.

Mr. Haverty was = in favor of the concrete structure. He believed it would save the Town money in the long run and be more efficient= in terms of heating and cooling. He felt that the building itself would be more durable and would have a longer useful life for the Town. He = also felt it provided the emergency personnel and apparatus a safe base for operation in the event of a catastrophe.&n= bsp;

Mr. Gleason requ= ested a motion and vote. This would b= e a decision on the structure, it would not include any further discussion on t= he soft cost or ascertaining the total cost of the project.

MOTION:

(Haverty/Lynde) To proceed with a design of a concrete structure and base the Selectmen’s future conversations around that design as being favored.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. Gleason aske= d for a discussion of how to address the issue of soft costs and the ultimate price= to be put forth to voters.

Mr. Viger felt t= hey needed to charge Trident with getting to those as-built/final numbers to go= out to bid so a real cost could be determined.= They would then be able to determine how they would move forward with that cost. He wanted to have = a not to exceed price. Mr. Haverty recalled in the past the Selectmen were provided with a binder that broke o= ut all the costs and felt they should go through that same exercise. Mr. Gaydos explained when they were previously doing the final design they pre-selected the construction manage= r at risk. The construction manage= r at risk would go through the final design process by finding the most cost effective way to do so; they also agree that the price is not going to exce= ed a certain amount. If the price = is less the Town would benefit, not the contractor. Mr. Gaydos said the design would n= ot only need to be reviewed by the architect, it would be reviewed by the chos= en construction manager. Include= d in the soft costs is also the furniture and fixtures, which would require a discussion with the Fire Chief. Mr. Gaydos told the Selectmen that Trident would be able to put together a time= line for proceeding. There was a b= rief discussion what was needed to determine the soft costs.

Mr. Gleason stat= ed that Mr. Gaydos needed direction from the Selectmen to spend money to develop and firm up the soft costs. To fi= rm that number for the ballot would take additional time. Mr. Gaydos noted that Trident was = very familiar with the project; therefore the process may not take much time. He said it would probably cost approximately $6500 to take them well into the process. Mr. Gleason asked if spending the = $6500 would get them to a number to go forward to the voters with, or if it would take additional funds to get to a firm number. Mr. Gaydos said it would go beyond= the $6500 because they would still need to go through the interview process for= the construction manager at risk and other costs. He felt the soft costs could = be determined for not more than $6500. Mr. = Gleason questioned what it would cost to get to a firm number for the project to go= to the voters. Mr. Gaydos said t= he project’s final design still needed to be done. Mr. Viger asked if the money spent= now, as part of the project, would ultimately come off the final end number. Mr. Gaydos answered yes. Mr. Gleason said last year the vot= ers were told there was remaining impact fees to reduce the cost of the project, but if they started spending those fees, the money wouldn’t be there. Mr. Gaydos stated that= the $3.7 million would be reduced; any money spent would go against the total project cost.

Mr. Gaydos told = the Selectmen he would contact Trident to inform them what they were tasked to do. He said they would come b= ack in a very short time to show what they would need to do to achieve what they w= ere asked and what date it could be done.

Mr. McDevitt rec= alled the last time the process was taken and wanted to know how they could avoid spending money on details that may or may not be used depending on how the voters decide. He asked if th= ere was a way to get the numbers without paying someone. Mr. Gaydos didn’t believe so= . He said every building that was de= signed had been drastically different than the one before it. Mr. McDevitt said he was simply tr= ying to minimize expenses for items that might not be used.

The Selectmen di= scussed the project further. Mr. Have= rty said regardless of how the project was funded, he wanted to arrive at the m= ost accurate number possible prior to Town Meeting. Mr. Gaydos noted by having the arc= hitect work with the contractor on the final details of the building would provide valued engineering. He said i= n the long run they would avoid change orders.&n= bsp; Mr. Gleason pointed out time was of the essence with the introductio= n of the roundabout project.

Mr. Gleason said= he would accept a motion to authorize Mr. Gaydos to proceed with the initial efforts necessary to get Trident going to firm up the soft costs. Mr. Gaydos said he would also work with Trident to devise an overall game plan/timeline of what all the steps were. Mr. Gleason asked if Trident could provide a rough timeline estimate by next Tuesday. Mr. Gaydos believed it could be achieved.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Haverty) To authorize expenditure up to $6500 to ascertain the soft costs and establish a time line and a listing of other things to be done to get to = the final (not to exceed) cost for the project.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. McDevitt mad= e it clear for the public that the Selectmen hadn’t had a full discussion about how to fund the project. He said some ideas had been discussed during the ‘round table’ discussion. There were several approaches that could be followed. These topics will be further discussed by the Selectmen at upcoming = meetings.

OTHER BUSI= NESS

Raymond Pa= rk Stabilization Project

Mr. Gaydos state= d when Tennessee Gas was putting in their pipeline, there was an area at Raymond P= ark that was ripped up and unstable. The Town got a permit at the time they were putting the soccer fields in. As part of the permit from the state indicated that the area needed to be stabilized. Mr. Gaydos summar= ized the area that needed to be stabilized and what would need to be done. He asked that an agenda item be ad= ded for further discussion/approval. Mr. Lynde said he would like to be involved and see the concept laid out. Mr. Gaydos wanted an engineer to r= eview the proposal to ensure they weren’t missing anything. Because Mr. Lynde expressed an int= erest in the project, Mr. Gaydos will keep him informed of the progress and invite him to meetings with the engineer. There was no objection to Mr. Gaydos proceeding.

TOWN ADMIN= ISTRATOR / SELECTMEN REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos said he continued to work on projects on the list.

Mr. Haverty, Mr. Viger and Mr. Lynde had no reports.

Mr. McDevitt was pleased to see the postcard from Senator Shaheen that she would have representative present to speak with residents regarding any concerns. He acknowledged the passing of Arnold Aleksonis who had been a custodian for the Town.

Mr. Gleason reminded residents that the Town Independence Day Celebra= tion would be held Jul= y 3, 2011.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Viger/Haverty) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was = adjourned at approximately 8:20 pm.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Charity A. Landry Willis

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Recording Secretary

BOARD OF SELECTMEN ACTION ITEMS

March 22, 2011=

·= ; = Mr. Gowan to advise Selectmen whether the CIP will be instituted; ~~Mr. McDevitt will contact Planning Director Gowan re: Planning Board’s intentions for (reforming)~~ CIP (Planning Board to make final decision- Selectmen resolved 4/12/11- left open for further resolution by Mr. Gowan; 5/10/11 Mr. Gaydos to follow up with Mr. Gowan re: status)(6/7/11 Mr. McDevitt said the Chairman of the Planning Board would s= et the CIP on the shelf for the time being because there was no public interest – after discussion with Selectmen, he said he would go back to Planni= ng and ask that they reconsider);

·= ; = Speak with Garden Club re: decorating round-about and possible lighting in future (Mr. McDevitt);

March 29, 2011=

·= ; = Mr. Gaydos to provide schedule for 2^{nd<=
/sup>
egress at Muldoon; presentation of plan (4/12/11 – plan to be received 4/13/11 Mr. Gay=
dos will request
Highway Safety Committee recommendation; 5/10/11 Mr. Gaydos said when he receiv=
ed the
easement agreement and the deed is drawn up – that paperwork will be
forwarded to Mr. Phil Currier for review/approval)(6/7/11 – Mr. Gaydos
said they were awaiting Mr. Currier’s comments on the easement deed /=
Mr.
McDevitt said the Planning Board was awaiting information from Selectmen as=
to
the traffic flow at the Muldoon Park property line / Highway Safety Committ=
ee
recommended both egresses be two-way traffic, and during the winter to close
the Nashua Road access)(6/21/11 – Mr. Gaydos provided an update that =
the
access would be the full 50ft. and the Little League would be able to move
their fence out 8ft);}

·= ; = Mr. Gaydos to speak with Police Chief regard= ing schedule for enacting Pawn Broker Ordinance (4/12/11 – Mr. Gaydos informed that the Police Chief was doing a lot of work with policies in accordance with being a certified agency, once completed he will work with Legal on the Pawn Broker Ordinance)(4/26/11 Police Chief rewriting the ordinance -upon completion will be reviewed with Mr. Gaydos then given to Selectmen);

·= ; = Planning Board to make recommendation to Selectmen regarding Article #14 (portion of Mulberry Lane, portion of Shephard Road and all of Lannan Drive);

·= ; = Mr. Gaydos to put timeline together for Castle Hill Road (6/7/11 easement = being completed that would allow the Crawfords to access their property);

·= ; = Future discussion regarding sidewalk from Se= nior Center to roundabout (4/12/11 – to be added as an action item on the agenda for the next Department of Transportation meeting to determine cost savings) (6/7/11 – the Town to decide if they still want the sidewalk – a meeting should be scheduled with DOT to find out if May date is s= till viable).

April 26, 2011<= b>

&nb= sp;

· Mr. Gaydos to review vendor list and identify which items should be discussed. (5/10/11 – Mr. Gaydos created a list and was fu= rther breaking it out because some vendors supply more than one item)

May 10, 2011=

·<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> = Mr. McDevitt researching appropriate signage= for Raymond Park (where parcels are located and what names were allowed per dee= ds) (6/7/11 Mr. McDev= itt said research was completed and would like to discuss with the Board after the meeting of 6/28/= 11);

May 24,= 2011

· Mr. Gaydos to contact the Congregational Church to find out how long they would allow the Town to use their property;